I think the honorable gentlemen know the meaning of "oblivion." A stronger word could be used, but I thought that was sufficient. Senator MOORE. It is a common word in politics.

Mr. NEWBERT. Yes.

Now, coming back to the suggestion that I make in connection with this bill, 2 years ago and over a Philadelphia paper put as a headline a slogan to this effect: "Fight the Depression Like We Fought the War." One of the men in the Senate Office Building here, who was on duty at the time, knowing my interest in trying to put something over to get us out of the depression, called my attention to it. So I never had to read it, but he showed it to me. The words that I added to it at once are stiff good stuff, I think:

Fight the depression like, only better than, we fought the war.

We have got to do it with reasonable speed, not that reckless sort of speed under which it was the most inefficient operation that has ever been undertaken. But we can fight the depression like we fought the war, only better than we fought the war, to get anywhere. Now, what did we do, Mr. Chairman, when we started to fight the war? We boosted production up to the limit of what we called war industries.

Senator MINTON. Will you please make specific application of your thought to this bill?

Mr. NEWBERT. In connection with both labor and capital, if you do not want to go any further along this line, I will say this: The first thing we want to do now to take care of both the labor and capital problems, and with regard to all the various material factors in industry in common, is to start carrying under Plank No. 1 this Seventy-fifth Party.

I might tell you how the Seventy-fifth Party came into existence, but I will not do that.

Put everybody in the United States over 21 years of age on the United States pay rolls, and keep them on the pay rolls until they pass out. We thereby get rid of all the intricacies of pension systems and old-age relief and every sort, shape or description. I might read, and I think it might better be read, the suggestions made as to the amount paid on this United States pay roll.

The first category is to be paid $1,500 a year minimum. common labor.

That is

The second category is to be paid $3,000 a year minimum, foremen and skilled labor. That is one-tenth of the first category.

The third category is to be paid $6,000 a year minimum, superintendents, and so forth, which is one-tenth of the second category.

The fourth category is to be paid a minimum of $12,000 yearly, which is composed of managers, scientists, and so forth, comprising one-tenth of the third category.

The fifth category is to be paid $25,000 yearly minimum, such directors and heads of well-managed industries, transportation, communications, Members of Congress, judges, governors, heads of large cities, labor leaders, foremost professional men, and so forth, comprising one-tenth of the fourth category.

The sixth category would be paid annually a minimum of $50,000, which is one-tenth of the fifth category, less than 1,000 in the United States who can spell "ablest"; designation not being necessary.

Multimillionaires over $50,000 yearly income outside of categories, including the President of the United States.

Others are not included, Let them go.

Now, the proposition of a pay roll would be idle, quixotic and foolish, were we not to suggest the thing to do with those that are put on the pay roll. I will call attention to plank no. 7 in this Progress Party, which states:

Capital investment by United States and largest projects at lowest unit costsdams for "white coal", potable water, irrigation, and fisheries. Ditches for canalizing and lake connections. Drains to transform swamps into finest garden and farming areas, rented to ablest farmers and gardners at rents beyond competition. Terracing of mountains, irrigation of arid lands. Forestation of all lands not otherwise better used on largest scale by United States at lowest unit cost. United States owning and renting to users.

Senator MINTON. I think we are getting too far afield. We will never get through if we proceed like this.

Mr. NEWBERT. I just want to read one or two of these planks and let you digest them at your leisure.

Senator MINTON. I am afraid my digestion along that line is not good.

Mr. NEWBERT. The main thing, Mr. Chairman, is to show that we have something justifying putting all these people on the United States pay roll at reasonable rates of pay to begin with, with work that would result. That would last over a period of 40 or 50 years, at least.

Senator MINTON. That would be very interesting, but we have no jurisdiction to go into that sort of thing. We will have to confine ourselves to this particular bill.

Senator MOORE. You are against the bill because it does not agree with your idea of getting out of the depression?

Mr. NEWBERT. I am against all these bills that set up these watertight compartments that are not getting us anywhere, because we have to carry on a work that will cover all these factors, and the only way we can sensibly do it is to carry it on in a way similar to the way we carried on the war, only better, of course.

Senator MOORE. Your idea is to have these remarks of yours in this pamphlet incorporated in the record?

Mr. NEWBERT. The ideas of United States Engineers, Inc., and in those remarks are letters to the President. I would like to call attention to the wording of the resolution, which is only 6%1⁄2 lines and 60 words, that Senator Norris, your distinguished colleague, introduced on February 1, which was:

Resolved, That the President be, and he is hereby, requested to send to the Senate a comprehensive plan for the improvement and development of the rivers of the United States, with a view of giving to Congress information for its guidance in legislation which will provide for the maximum amount of flood control, navigation, irrigation, and development of hydroelectric power.

That line below was a note that I made to Senator Norris the very next day that the word "control" should be changed to "prevention." Those 21 points, from A to U, include a very brief sketch to represent what could be done under that resolution that would at least keep everybody in this country busy, with the very best of machinery, the very best of management, together with the highest wages paid to labor for the next 40 or 50 years before we would have to seriously consider any other problems.

That really should take precedence over the Guffey bill, inasmuch as it has been presented with other suggestions to the President. I understand, for your information, if you wish to secure it, you can get 5 or 6 bulky volumes telling you what you can do, suggesting what you can do, under that resolution. I am positive that in these 21 points more has been stated on what to do with labor and industry and the possibilities of that resolution than in all these 5 or 6 bulky volumes. Inasmuch as you are all very busy, you can read those 21 points much quicker than you can read 2 to 5 or 6 bulky volumes which are available. But all of that information is available to you if you want to take time to go into it.

So all I want to do now is to suggest this to you as a substitute for that, and if you want to know more about those things I would like to have these remarks and this communication to the President go into the record.

Senator MINTON. This report of yours, beginning on page 1245 and continuing to page 1253 of the hearings before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, on S. 1130, will be incorporated in this record by reference.

Mr. NEWBERT. Fine. That is what I would like.

Senator MINTON. That is done to save expense of printing.
Mr. NEWBERT. I thank you.

Senator MINTON. Before we go into hearing the witnesses on rebuttal, I would like to ask if there is anyone else here this morning who wishes to be heard in opposition to this bill. If not, we will consider that the opposition to the bill has been heard, and the proponents may again take up their side of the question. I believe Mr. Mahan is to be the first on the list.

Of course, if there is anybody who really has not had an opportunity to present his views in opposition to this bill through no fault of his own, we will not close the door in his face, but we want it understood that we expect to terminate these hearings sometime. STATEMENT OF EDWARD MAHAN, REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing before the committee as a representative of the Southern Appalachian Coal Operators' Association, which has in its membership mines in eastern Kentucky and east Tennessee. Generally speaking, they are in favor of some form of Federal legislation. The views that I shall express in regard to some of the details of the Guffey bill are my own, but I think they would be generally approved by the members of that association if they had the opportunity to pass upon them.

I am president of the Southern Coal & Coke Co., and am an executive officer in some capacity in 12 mining companies associated with it. I have been actively engaged in the coal business for over 35 years. I have spent a considerable portion of that time in resisting Federal legislation to control the industry, and in fighting the United Mine Workers of America.

In view of the fact that the issues involved in the Guffey bill are very vital to the industry, in which I have spent my life and in which I have a substantial financial interest, I think perhaps it would be worth while if I would briefly state to the committee some of the

opportunities I have had for making a study of the problems of the industry. I assisted in the formation of the Southern Appalachian Coal Operators' Association some 25 years ago, was its second president, and have served as a member of its executive committee since its organization. I was active in the formation of the National Coal Association and have served as a director of that organization since the first year of its formation. I have been a member of its executive board for some 12 years. During the life of the National Coal Association I have served on practically all of its committees, and have held every elective office in it with the exception of secretary and treasurer. I served as chairman of a subcommittee, which for 3 months gave serious consideration to every suggestion that was made from any source for the solution of the industry's problems. This committee subsequently recommended a plan since known as the "marketing agency arrangement", and the committee's recommendation was unanimously approved by the directors of the National Coal Association. Upon the adoption of this plan Applachian Coals, Inc., was formed and arrangements made to make the plan operative in the so-called "Appalachian" territory. I assisted in the formation of Appalachian Coals, and have served as an officer and member of its executive committee since its organization. While the marketing agency idea was unanimously approved by the National Coal Association, outside of Appalachian Coals and Northern Coals of Ohio, no other group ever put the plan into operation.

I served on the so-called "Hoover committee" in 1922, when the country was threatened with an acute shortage of coal. This committee of seven exercised very substantial regulatory powers over the industry for a period of months, both in the matter of price and distribution of coal. I served as president of the Smokeless Appalachian Coal Operators' Association, and signed, in behalf of that organization, the code as finally worked out. I am citing these facts only for the purpose of showing you that I have had opportunities out of the ordinary to consider the industry's problems. The further fact that I represented a territory where costs of production are above the average made it desirable for the protection of such territory that we assist in every cooperative effort for the benefit of the industry whenever it was reasonably possible.

As a member of the National Coal Association, I have up to the time the National Recovery Act was passed, zealously opposed any form of Federal legislation. I was opposed to it, and in common with most all the operators, was very sorry to see the measure enacted into a law. This same attitude, I think, applies to practically every coal operator who has appeared before this subcommittee asking for a continuation of the N. R. A. and the code. We were practically all opposed to it, especially on account of its labor provision, and only acquiesced in it when we were compelled to do so. After it became a law, I decided to make the best of it and gave the measure, including the labor provisions, my full support, principally because the industry was in such a deplorable condition that I felt nothing that was done could make it any worse.

Under the operation of the code the industry has made very substantial advances, and until within the last few months wages and prices have been fairly well stabilized. The industry has emerged from "the slough of despond" and has, generally speaking, gotten on

its feet. I would gladly join with other operators who have testified before you asking for a continuation of the code, if I felt that it was possible for the industry to continue to operate under it in the future as it did for 15 months after its adoption. I think I am reasonably conservative in my statement when I say that it is the general opinion the industry that the code has broken down, is being flagrantly violated, and in my opinion, it would be extremely difficult to rehabilitate and make operative, even if supported by additional legislation along the lines recommended by the National Coal Association. If the committee decides, however, that such a course is desirable, I will gladly support it.

Since seeing the results that were obtained under the first 15 months of the code's operation, I have become thoroughly convinced that the previous attitude I had in regard to Federal legislation was unsound, and that the only chance to keep the coal industry from getting back to its former deplorable condition is the eactnment of some form of Federal legislation.

So far as the Guffey bill is concerned, I would be very much opposed to it in its present form because as written I do not think it is workable or practical. I do think it is possible for the bill to be rewritten so that it would be both practical and workable, and my own individual opinion is that if it were put in such form that it would meet with the approval of a large percentage of the industry.

I am going to undertake to point out to you some of the major changes in this bill that I think are absolutely necessary. In doing so, I will omit any reference to a great many minor changes that I think should be made because these can be ironed out when and if the bill is redrafted.

I am not going to make any comments with reference to the legal phases of the bill because that is a matter upon which I do not feel competent to pass. Assuming that the bill is constitutional, the changes that I am going to suggest are what I think are needed to make it really workable. Section 2 provides for a National Bituminous Coal Commission of five members. This number I think should be increased to seven. Successful operation of this bill largely depends upon this Commission, which will have a great deal to do, and which should be large enough to be representative. This Commission has broad powers, and if Federal legislation is a success it will have to have broad powers, because it will have to settle the many disputes that will arise, and under the operation of any bill there will necessarily be many controversies, at least during the first few years of its operation.

Incidentally, I might say that the bill provides for one operator and one representative of the miners to be on this commission. Personally, I am rather of the opinion that they should serve for 1 year each and not be eligible to succeed themselves. The reason for that is that it would have a tendency to prevent any so-called "clique" section in the commission, and they would have the ideas of different miners from different sections and the benefit of their advice.

The matter of allocation is one of the most difficult. I think it is fully conceded here that the allocation plan as set up in the original bill is distinctly unfair. I think that a large percentage of the unfairness in the present bill could be eliminated if you would substitute the year 1923 for the year 1918, in section (b) of page 7. This would mean